: Dave, I just want to say first that I appreciate your presence here. I disagree, but you're a bright, honest guy. But, disagree I do and disagree I must. Here we go:
Well, at least someone appreciates me. But yes, disagreement is inevitable.
: Dave said: But you see, if I were to go strictly by the definition of capitalist, than Betty would indeed be one. For you see, what she did was take a limited amount of capital that she owned and started to produce a product. That product was bought by consumers and she was then able to reinvest into her business and allow it to grow. So, in actuality Betty is a capitalist. She has invested capital in order to realize more capital.
: I was trying to make a distinction between petit-bourgeois shop-owners (notoriously reactionary and wedded to the system) and big-time capitalists. I was saying that she's not on a level with the big boys because she has little political influence.
That is correct, and that is also why Betty will probably not be able to expand her market to outside her general area. She will be squashed at every attempt by larger companies. Just for the record, I am completely against business being able to buy off politicians and have granted special favors, that is why I am a laissez-faire capitalist. I am opposed to government intervention.
: Dave said: In your attempt to "clear up different definitions" you added your own bias to them by essentially stating [above] that to be a capitalist one must have an incestous relationship with the government, screw consumers, not take responsibility for your business, and harm the environment. Are there any other conditions you would like to add? For instance you could also state that all capitalists must attend the joint Illuminati/New World Order/Pave the Earth/Chrome the moon committee every year to think up new ways to pave Walden and screw the proletariat. You could also add that they must also have Ronald Reagen altars etc... etc...
: This is exaggeration for comic effect, and it did make me laugh. Of course that's not what I was saying. I was saying that, that Betty's story is used as a microcosm for the system as a whole, which it is most certainly not. And I wanted to imply (the artsy-fartsy part of my letter) that, no matter how "honest" or "kind" Betty is, she can't escape her class position, which is becomes capitalist .
It made me laugh while I was writing it (the funny thing is though is that all those aforementioned groups are all similar in the sense that most of the people who are either members of or yahoos for are all big Ayn Rand idolatars.), and you are correct, she will have to become as a capitlist in the sense that she will have to "exploit" (not my word!) her workers. The interesting thing is though is that she will have to "exploit" her workers more than larger companies do because she has much tigher margins. The other side of the coin though is that if her business blossoms and becomes more profitable, many of those starting workers will probably become partners or be given a larger chunk of the pie.
: Dave: Anyways, my point is that unless you adhere to the barebones definition of capitalist than dialogue will get nowhere. It is for this reason that I do not characterize (or at least try not to) all socialists as bleeding heart liberals/ivory tower academics who believe that all of mankind can't function without their copyrighted master plan that they intend to have published which due to their infatuation with a thesaurus and lawyer-style (herein, heretofore, wherefore, thence, etc...) writing only similar minded academics will understand, thus leaving the people they are trying to "emancipate" in the dark.
: Hey, now, there you go. This is why I'm glad you've come into this debating room.
: This paragraph is good. Tart humor is one of the things the Left is lacking. I disagree, of course, but this paragraph is still funny.
It is good to see someone appreciates my humor. I have a good time poking fun at both sides of the coin. I'll have to tell you about this book I read from the 1950s called "You can trust communists (to be communists!)" written by this Australian author who had the skinny on avoiding communist brainwashing and how the soviet union will one day conquer America in the 1980s (at least according to his sophisticated mathematical model). He even equated communists with this lunatic he looked after during WWII in Australia. It is abosolutely priceless.
Anyways, my above point that you disagreed with was that there is a lot of misconceptions that go both ways. Just on this Debate board alone there are probably ten different forms of marxism/socialism. Similarly, capitalism takes on different forms. A tyrannical government can still be capitalist (Chile for example). To say that I am a capitalist does not mean I condone Chile nor its actions. I favor the capitalist form of economics, however, when it comes to politics I a proponent of a constitutionally limited democracy.
: I look forward to more exchanges with you.
Same to you.